Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a gambler. 🙂 Encouraged to retire in the latter half of the Obama administration, Ginsburg wanted an extra year or three on the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) bench; and why should she deny herself that when Hillary Rodham Clinton was practically the next anointed President. So of course, she placed that bet; hang on and let Hillary name her replacement. It was a perfect cake eating and having scenario. 🙂

But a funny thing happened on the way to retirement. Hillary aint President. Now what? Hope for impeachment (a leftist pipe dream)? Last time I looked the POTUS succession line was about five or six GOP deep. Maybe try to hang on for another four years? That might work; but what if that next election doesn’t pan out either… eight is entirely different; eight is a long, long time.

Me? I find the predicament quite humorous. 🙂 When your enemies are gnashing teeth and rending garments it makes for good theater. And I’ve always been a big fan of karma (when she’s not biting me on the ass).

I bring this up only because I recently read a proposal from conservative news CEO Chris Ruddy (Newsmax.com). Ruddy has suggested Trump extend an olive branch to the left; a deal if you may. He thinks that President Donald Trump should offer that deal to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Retire now… and he will nominate… Judge Merrick Garland (President Barack Obama’s last nominee) to replace her.

I can’t say I’m in favor of the plan, but I can’t say I’m against it either. I’ve keep inching from one side to the over, more often than not against it.

Pro:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the least qualified member of the SCOTUS) will no longer be on the SCOTUS.

Con:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be replaced by a slightly less not qualified judge.

Side Note: Anyone who believes in a living Constitution is not qualified to be a judge (or to hold any appointed or elected office).

Pro:
You’re replacing an ultra-leftist jurist with a moderate.

Con:
A moderate is just someone who pauses in the center… before turning left.

Pro:
It’s always the moral thing to do to seek common ground, to seek compromise, to extend the olive branch to your opposition.

Con:
The left has and never will reciprocate. The olive branch will get you NOTHING in return (besides Ginsburg gone). And if you think you’re going to get something; you sure as ^%$# better get your end first, have it in writing, or have a means to ensure the terms are met.

When it comes down to it, it’s a gamble. Issues at hand mean literally life or death for tens of thousands… religious liberty or further persecution… free speech… gun rights… issues core to the fabric of a healthy (or sick) republic. You’re giving up the possibility of a major shift (in the right direction) in the SCOTUS for a little insurance that we will only trot to hell vs sprint. I just can’t make that deal… If we’re taking the country to hell, let’s do it at a dead (leftist) run… OR… turn around. I’m really not interested in anything in the middle (the trotting option).

Sure, there’s that nagging feeling of “should we make a deal”. Are we repeating the mistake of a proud old woman? And consider that our odds aren’t nearly as good as hers were…

I thought the Prickly City cartoon (which I follow religiously) was really good today (on several levels). As a technical guy, I’m always telling my users to “reboot”; which in my defense solves the problem 90% of the time.

If I’m ever on life support and flat-line… don’t panic. Unplug me… wait a few seconds… and plug me back in. If that doesn’t work… then PANIC!

Watching the left’s reaction to the 2016 has been a mixed bag. Most of all we are seeing a full frontal display of the core essence that make up the leftist mindset; immaturity, violence, hatred, narcissism, denial, self-absorption, and entitlement.

It is telling that Washington is spending millions in preparation of the rabble that will soon be swarming the city to protest Trumps inauguration. They have no choice given the violence and millions of dollars of damage done thus far by “protesters”. But note this… While I’m sure this is a banner year, Washington has to spend this kind of money and does this kind of prep EVERY time a Republican takes the oval office (since Nixon). Every time a Democrat is sworn in… the cost and prep is minimal in comparison. Again, it’s telling…

The main thing we are seeing is the left lashing out like wounded animals or exhibiting the first two stages of grief/loss (denial and anger). They latch on to anything and everything to blame and explain what they cannot fathom. Villains and scapegoats abound; Jim Comey, Russian Hackers, Fake News, the Electoral College, and the oldie, goodie, tried and true… racism of the winners and the unwashed who put them there.

They know there must be an explanation of the loss of Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. Like O.J. searching for the real killers… they will look everywhere… everywhere except at a Party/ideology out of touch OR a flawed candidate with a flawed message.

I am actually somewhat grateful for the childish display; because for the rest of America it is confirming. Maybe not so much that Donald Trump is the right man at the right time to bring us back from the brink… but that the left isn’t, never was and never will be.

So I’m going to write a few posts on what I’m observing concerning the various aspects of this leftist lashing out, grasping, and blaming.

So let’s get started…

The Electoral College

Let’s start with the Electoral College since it is pretty prominent on the list and relevant since they actually vote tomorrow (Monday 12/19/16).

The Electoral College was one of the first villains latched onto by the flailing left.

Again exposing the hypocrisy of the left, if the results had been as they expected (and predicted), Hillary winning the Electoral College and losing the popular vote, the left would be extolling the virtues and protections provided by the institution provided by the founding fathers. The left has no fondness for the popular vote, the electoral college or even democracy. They only care about power which they believe they are entitled to.

As punishment for not falling into leftist lockstep, some on the left say the Electoral College must be eliminated and the Presidency decided by popular vote. The electoral college after all is… wait for it… racist. (And you wonder why people roll their eyes when this crap is spouted again and again and again.)

But wait! The left isn’t really sure whether they should attack or embrace the Electoral College (at least for now). On one hand, they instinctively attack it because those numbers didn’t go their way… so it must be abolished. At the same time, they are saying “Wait! the Electoral College IS a safety valve put in place to stop this very thing (Trumps election), so that sane minds could override the ignorant electorate.” Thus the organized efforts to get enough electors to switch and deny Trump the needed count.

Case in point, Martin Sheen (and various other actors from “The West Wing”) produced a video seeking to get electors to change their votes, stating (as a group)…

“Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you. As you know, our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree and down with the requisite qualifications. I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton — just don’t vote for Trump… As you know, the Constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person. Any eligible person — no matter which party they belong to. By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency… What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president. He lacks the necessary stability and clearly the respect for the Constitution of our great nation….

See… right there, that’s insulting. The balls it takes for a bunch of leftist actors to turn to the Constitution (which they pretty well detest) as the means of thwarting an election is phenomenal. But using the charge that the man who won is unfit because he lacks “respect for the Constitution of our great nation” is beyond the pale. To make this assertion after supporting Barack Hussein Obama for eight %^$#ing years! Hypocrites one and all!

Sheen (and his ilk) pledge that anyone who votes their way will go “down in the books as an American hero,” will “have my respect.”

Which gets back to a basic biblical truth electors should consider. If the world loves you, you are of the world. The last thing I would want would be the admiration and respect of these shallow, worldly, @ssholes. They’re not interested in you, justice, democracy, or the Constitution; they just want power for their side.

So my stance is… let the left scream, stomp, curse, knash their teeth, rend their garments, and show their collective @sses… well, I mean more than usual… Once this little scheme fails (tomorrow 12/18/16), they’ll be ready to toss aside the evil, racist, Electoral College that just a breath ago was designed to “safeguard the American people”.

Side Note: In fact, the Electoral College was put in place as a compromise to get the small states (what would have been fly-over country back then) to approve the Constitution. Without it, those states would have been ignored in the grand scheme of national elections and politics. AND those (very valid) concerns should still worry fly-over country today. Luckily the Electoral College is literally Constitutional, making it nie-impossible to be rid of it. Good.

I can’t help but give a few drive-by TexasLynn insights into the Trump 2016 Presidential victory.

First, to reiterate, I was not a Trump supporter (as many who read my blog know). I was even less of a Hillary supporter, and slightly less for Johnson (Libertarian), and Stein (Nutso/Green).

Trump’s election is the worst possible outcome… except for all the rest.

(See the conclusion of where we go from here…)

What Trump’s Election Means:
The following is a bullet point list of what Donald Trumps’ election means; what those who put him in office are trying to say to the world and to their leaders. There seems to be

This is a repudiation of multiculturalism

This is a repudiation of globalization (same as the Brexit vote)

This is a repudiation of the establishment elites (GOP, Democrats, Media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc…)

This is a repudiation of Obama and his legacy (see more below)

This is a repudiation of Clinton (all things Clinton)

This is a repudiation of the status quo (see change below)

This is a primal scream for change… CHANGE! (Can you hear me now?!)

What Trump’s Election Doesn’t Mean:
Lest we read into this what we want…

This is not an embrace of conservatism (Donald Trump and his policies are not conservative)

This is not a repudiation of liberalism (I wish it was…)

Why He Won:
Elections are more and more divisions of urban vs. rural mindsets. That’s bad news for us rural guys. We’re outnumbered and it’s only going to get worse. Our only hope for influence is for the urban turnout to be muted and for rural turnout to be impassioned. If urban turnout is average or better… it doesn’t matter what we do… they win. Luckily urban turnout is often muted in off-year elections and that, I think, is what happened here. Normal urban voters (particularly blacks) were not inspired by Hillary.

Hillary Knew:
Now this is hindsight, but I really should have seen the signs that a Trump victory was in the works. In my defense, that is hard to do with the entirety of the main stream media (MSM) (and to a lesser extent the minute conservative media); screaming “it’s a done deal”.

There were three signs in the past few days indicating that Trump was likely to win and that Hillary (including her campaign, and the Obama administration) knew it.

Hillary canceled the fireworks over New York. She would not have done that had she not known there was trouble ahead.

(And this is the big one) Every big name Democrat (Obama, Hillary, Bill, Biden, etc…) were campaigning in blue states the last few days of the election. That (in hindsight) was a desperate defensive play (and the proof that they knew). It would have been like Trump having to come and campaign in Texas. If you as a Republican must defend Texas, all is lost. If you, as a Democrat have to defend Michigan or Pennsylvania… all is lost.

(And this is the most consistent bellwether one) TexasLynn thought it was without a doubt going to be a Clinton victory. TexasLynn is never (or at best seldom) right about these things. 🙂

Bringing the Nation Together:
Everybody is talking about how, now, the future President must try to bring the nation together. It sounds nice, and both sides of the aisle like to say and hear it. But, really… As a nation, we’re just too divided. I’m just not that interested in pretending.

Obama and the left may have parroted the words early in 2008, but you dam sure didn’t see them doing something as stupid as acting on it. I’m OK with that. “Elections have consequences.” Say the words, but do what you got to do.

Want to be the first to extend the olive branch? Want to hope we can have less rancor and demonization on both sides of the aisle? OK, make the offer. I just don’t see it as even in the nature of the left. So work together and actually compromise where you can… but other than that… push on.

The Left:
This is one of the few times every few years that I make an effort to watch the MSM. I admit the guilty pleasure of watching them rend their garments and lash out at the uneducated, unwashed, racist, sexist, backwards, basket of deplorables… who just gave them a screwing.

The left over the past eight years has celebrated unconstitutional dictates from the oval office with the excuse that “if Congress won’t act then the President must/should”. Do they still hold that view? If you are changing these types of views dependent upon if you’re guy holds the office, then 1) you’re an idiot and 2) you’re a hypocrite.

Is there some glimmer of hope that the left will actually return to supporting the checks and balances between the three branches of government (if they ever did)? Sure… for four/eight years… but can we ever hope they’ll have the wisdom to see this is the way we should always govern. I admit my doubts that they can make that leap.

Also… get ready for real leftist contortions. In just two short months, the idea that “opposition is racist” will transform into “opposition is virtuous”.

Obama:
Trump’s election pretty well cements the legacy of Obama as a failure. This didn’t have to be the case, but was a political decision made by Obama (and the left) during his tenure. Law (passed by Congress and signed by the President) is law. Executive orders and fiats, with the stroke of a pen endure (or wiped away) just as easily by the next guy. If it’s your guy/gal, you’re golden; if not, it’s the bed you made.

If you choose to govern in this manner, you risk your legacy being wiped away (like with a cloth or something) in the same manner by the next administration. And… it should be. If you choose not to work within the framework of the Constitution, then your policy deserves the same respect (or lack thereof) you afforded the rule of law.

Obama’s signature accomplishment, Obamacare, too should suffer a similar fate (as his executive fiats). While actually passed by Congress (into law), it was done so with no opposition input, was by design deceptive, and once in practice a disaster. It should be ripped up by the roots and thrown on the ash heap of history. That said, it will be up to Trump and the Republicans to come up with something that actually works and helps. Let’s see if they can do any better.

So that’s Obama’s legacy. A repudiation of pretty well eight years of trudging along at best. Eight years of the world getting more and more dangerous for America and her interests. The man was a boob, and history will record him as such.

Hillary and Bill:
Hillary and Bill Clinton are co-conspirators in an organized crime ring; selling influence and worse from the State Department for many years. The Clinton Foundation was the means of access, the means of funneling, and the means of laundering the money.

“When the director of the F.B.I. laid bare her gross negligence for arrogantly setting up her own email system while secretary of state and announced there would be no prosecution, you could hear the heavens thunder for justice. Not since O.J. Simpson had someone so obviously guilty by the facts, walked away.” — Kevin Dowd, Maureen Dowd’s more conservative brother

But we have a tradition of peaceful transition of power. We do not jail our opponents after an election. We should err on the side of freeing the guilty in order to maintain that practice.

My advice for Trump is to let the justice system (the FBI) run its course with no interference or input on his part.

Now the Obama Justice Department has rigged the system and protected the Clintons so far. That obstruction needs to be rectified once Lynch is gone. One of the main impediments put in place is the DOJ refusal of allowing a grand jury to be seated; which gives more leverage in investigating wrong-doing.

FBI director Comey has been an idiot throughout this whole ordeal, BUT… if it is Trump’s gut feel that Comey has been on the up-and-up… then I would allow him (and more importantly the career FBI investigators) to continue the investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

But, to be honest, we’ve reached a point where a special prosecutor needs to pick this up and bring it to a conclusion. Trump should seek Democratic input in this process (like selecting someone as impartial as possible) as an olive branch. If they refuse, or (as is more likely) seek to demagogue and obfuscate the process then %$#@ them, and move forward making the process as honest and transparent as possible.

So.. make sure the process is fair and let it take its course. While that works its way through the system… Shut up about it until the results are in and then live with those results (no matter what they are) and move on.

Now assuming there were an indictment (and/or conviction) in the future. And I understand that’s a big IF. There is already talk of a pardon. That’s the President’s call… BUT I would say that no pardon should be on the table unless there were some public admission of guilt and some display of contrition.

All of this may be mute based on the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama still has two plus months left in office. I wouldn’t put anything past that man…

The time left in the Clinton’s allotment of fame (well beyond the 15 minutes of mere mortals) are not going to be pleasant ones. Not for the public, not for them. Nor should they be… (the heavens want what they want). But even Clinton’s supporters, apologists, and protectors wish they would just go away now… so quickly they turn on you when you fail them…

“The Clintons remind me of the Universal horror movies where you thought the monster was dead and then the monster would show up in a bad sequel. I’m glad now that they’re finally gone.” — Maureen Dowd, New York Times

The Market:
Dow futures were down 600-700 points the night of the election when it became obvious that Trump had won. By this morning, everything had stabilized. Why? Because the conjecture arose that NOW the Federal Reserve will not raise interest rates.

This is further proof that the entire 18K stock market is built on a bubble of artificially low interest rates (the horrendous Fed policy). This basically means for almost a decade the Federal government has kept money cheap so as to make it possible to maintain huge deficits. All this on the backs of people who save and are retired (aka, the responsible). It’s is delinquent and immoral.

It will hurt (the economy). It will hurt a lot. But this needs to be rectified… before it’s too late.

The Polls:
In the last Presidential cycle (Obama/Romney), I didn’t believe the polls and they ended up being right. (I found it inconceivable that we would elect such a boob for President… TWICE.) This time, I believed the polls (partly because of their accuracy last time) AND they were wrong. (I think they fell for the same bias I did last time.)

A good half or more of the polls are less concerned with accuracy than with pushing voters in a particular (mostly left) direction. A few are actually interested in the scientific prediction of what is statistically likely to happen. Unfortunately, it is generally hard to know which is which. (Though if you see an MSM tag on one… you can pretty well easily classify and dismiss it.)

OK, so the polls were wrong this time, and giving them the benefit of the doubt (on bias), why were they so wrong?

The theory I am most apt to believe is that their samples were corrupted by the distrust and disdain conservatives and Trump supporters have for the main stream media and by extension the polls.

I’ll admit it right now. If a pollster approached me, the first thing I would want to know is who he was affiliated with… and the answer to THAT question would affect my answers to his questions. No answer to my question on affiliation equals no answer to his; and any association to the MSM will likely result in me either 1) refusing to participate or 2) lying to them. The increasing prevalence of this attitude makes it harder and harder for these guys to gather the data their models are so dependent on.

I hope this is the reason, and I hope this problem continues.

Conclusion:
Again, I will follow the lead of others and start with a clean slate. I’ll do my best to maintain an open mind and allow Trump to lead and govern. I hope he turns things around, since I and a majority of this nation think we are headed in the wrong direction. As we move forward, I’ll call balls and strikes as I see ‘em… I hope that four years from now, I am a Trump convert.

I can’t claim to be optimistic, but I can give my hopes and prayers to the man. God speed…

Thanks to Dave H for bringing my attention to Scott Adams’ posting concerning his endorsement of Trump. (see Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump) It was interesting reading. I’m a big fan of his work, “Dilbert”, being a technology professional and someone who has worked in large, soulless, bureaucratic corporations (Enron, Electronic Data Systems, Merrill Lynch). Judging from the evidence of his work, Mr. Adams has a knack for insight, cynicism, and humor. (Kind of like me, huh… :))

The introduction is telling concerning the mindset of California and the left. Though, admittedly, I view California as do many Texans… “the land of fruits and nuts” and thus by association leftist. If you’re conservative (or even hold one or two conservative ideas) you keep them to yourself in that environment. The ramifications to your person and business and life are scary. I would go so far as to say there is a fitting word for this type of vitriolic reaction to opposition… “fascist”. And to give credit where it’s due, Mr. Adams is brave to risk those consequences. Yes, an opposite reaction can be expressed by conservatives towards liberals; but I honestly think it’s not as pronounced or hateful.

But I digress…

Let’s look at Adams’ arguments for switching his endorsement to Trump…

1. What We Don’t Know
Mr. Adams’ first point seems to be that we collectively don’t know enough about big world issues to make decisions or form justifiable opinions… and that we should concentrate on the things we do know something about.

“I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do” — Scott Adams

I’m a little skeptical concerning this line of thought. I don’t know a lot about nuclear tipped missiles; but I DO know I want policies that keep Islamic nut-jobs away of them. This may sound like something that goes without saying, but in this day-and-age it’s obviously not.

You don’t have to have an in depth knowledge of an issues to form an informed, common sense opinion. It’s not rocket science to see where socialism, globalism, and progressivism lead. It just takes a little common sense and historical perspective. So we can use the adequate God-given tools we have without having to learn and digest ALL the intricate details an expert on a subject does.

With all this in mind… Mr. Adams basis his decision (to jump from Hillary to Trump) on things he knows which he lists as the estate taxes, Hillary’s health, Trumps being a leader, and Trump being a persuader.

2a. Confiscation of Property
This (the Estate Tax) seems to have been the turning point issue for Mr. Adams. He’s rich (and deservedly so) and the government (overall) takes half what he makes. The feds under Hillary will take another 50% of what remains when he dies for a total of 75% It confiscatory and it is as Adams puts it “robbery by government”. To quote a previous President, I feel his pain (figuratively and intellectually… not literally… I’m just a poor boy).

But… OK… His coming around and concern remind me of the movie Die Hard. (Hang in here with me.) John McClane calls 911 and explains terrorists have taken over the Nakatomi building. They think it’s a prank call, then send a donut eating cop to check it out. It’s obvious he’s being fooled and is about to drive off. So… McClane drops a dead terrorist body on the hood of the car from several stories up and all hell breaks loose. To which McClain exclaims… “Welcome to the party pal!”

My point? Hillary Clinton, nay… the entire Democratic party has had at it’s core this type of robbery and income distribution for decades… DECADES!!! The rates may go up and down (thanks to Republicans) but the core idea of robbery has ALWAYS been there. So why now? Why figure this out now and allow it to sway you and not ten, twenty, or thirty years ago? And why apply it to Hillary and not the entire left, the entire Democratic Party?

2b. Misleading Information on Her Web Site
In the same section Adams complains that Hillary’s web site seeks to mislead people on exactly what she intends to do; and that the confiscatory policy applies to a much broader range of incomes. Missing details, misleading inferences; you get the picture.

“So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.” — Scott Adams

OK… I’m back to the movie Die Hard. (Hang in here with me.) John McClane calls 911… No wait… Morpheus is offering Neo two pills, one blue (in his left hand) and one red (in his right hand)… 🙂

Same thing. This crap has been a core practice of Hillary Clinton, nay… the entire Democratic party (and the entire left, including the minions in the main stream media) for decades… DECADES!!! So… Why now?

3. Party or Wake
Adams says Trump supporters are happy, and Clinton supporters are not. While Adams says this is not his biggest reason… I don’t know why it’s a reason at all.

Dang… I’m being more critical than I thought I would be… Sorry Mr. Adams.

4. Clinton’s Health
Adams is concerned with Hillary’s health. It’s a valid concern and I agree that Hillary is in bad shape (mentally and physically). But the key problem isn’t the megalomaniac in power but the party in power with which she shares an overall leftist philosophy. If she croaks, Cain will pull a Lyndon B. Johnson and continue to screw things up for generations to come.

Adams is also concerned with Bill Clinton’s health too and worries that a dying husband would distract President Hillary. LMAO… Adams need not worry; she wouldn’t give sick Bill a second thought. 🙂 The only focus would be on creating the appearance of a concerned wife to milk sympathy from the public. (Never let a crisis go to wasted after all.) Behind the scenes, I really believe she would dance on his grave.

5. Pacing and Leading
Adams says Trump is really just using a persuasion technique when he takes extreme positions. He’ll govern differently. Adams uses Trumps softening on issues, such as deportation, as evidence of this. Even Trump has announced everything to be a starting position in negotiations (deals if you will) that he is ready and prepared to engage in.

I’ve heard this argument before, and admit it’s possible. But if it is, Trump is just too good at pretending in order to inflate the initial negotiating position… I can’t tell; so maybe it’s me as Adams believes to be the case.

My gut feel still says he’s an immature, shallow, person… and that those characteristics would be key to his leadership.

6. Persuasion
Adams says the real job of the President is in selling and persuading. I can see that. It’s definitely an important part of the job and a key part of leadership.

“They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public.” — Scott Adams

I agree surrounding yourself with good people and listening to their advice is key to being a good President. I think that is a lot of what Reagan (the Great Communicator) did. But this is by definition a humility play. Does Trump really have that in him? He says he’ll do it…

On a side note… this is one of the main reasons Obama has been such a horrible President. Obama is arrogant and thinks he knows better than all the experts around him (a common leftist fault).

“I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it. It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” — Barack Obama

It’s a terrible thing to be an incompetent idiot. It’s even worse to be one, not know it, and be arrogant about the knowledge and ability you don’t have but think you do. I definitely think Hillary falls into the same mold; maybe not to the extent of Obama, but it’s there.

Conclusion:
I’m not sold. I just can’t get over the gut feel I have concerning the core values that make up Trump. No these values are not as bad as the black-hearted, evil core values of Hillary Clinton… but neither deserve my vote. And I’m through voting for the lesser of two evils. In defense of Trump, I’d feel the same way if Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or John Kasich were the nominee.

I appreciate Mr. Adams sharing his thoughts; especially in an environment where that will elicit dung throwing (maybe literally) by his “friends” and “neighbors” in California. Hopefully he has reached a point where he can insulate himself and not give-a-#$@%.

I listened to the whole debate last night… while I cleaned my kitchen and worked on my computer and wrote a response for my blog and…

I have a few opinions/observations that I’ll share.

I didn’t watch the debate; I just listened. And I understand a lot of deciding who wins or loses is in the visual cues of the candidates. By listening (or reading) you can only judge by substance. 🙂 There wasn’t much of that from either side.

I think it was a tie. Didn’t hear any real decisive moments or quips from either side.

The moderator was terrible. But what do you expect from the likes of Lester Holt (a member of the Main Stream Media). The bias was obvious… again.

Moderator not Fact-Checker
My first complaint about Holt was his challenging of answers given by Donald Trump. He didn’t do that to Clinton… at all… not even once. If you want to challenge the candidate you do that at the beginning of the question and leave it at that. For example you say “Mr. Trump… in 2003 you said to Bob Reporter that you thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea, yet you claim you were against it from the beginning; how do you reconcile that?” And that’s it. You let the candidate answer and you say nothing else. YOU are the MODERATOR… NOT the on premise, off-the-cuff (Republican candidate only) FACT CHECKER. That is the responsibility of the other candidate and actual fact checkers parsing through the debate you are supposed to be moderating.

One problem with leftist moderator’s real-time fact checking is that they often get it wrong (just like in their “reporting”). Candy Crowley got it wrong when she corrected Romney (siding with Obama) regarding Benghazi; and the Obama administration’s failure to identify it as terror (instead of a demonstration gone bad). The error is then out there… and a correction is never offered.

Stop and Frisk
Lester Holt did the same thing last night by stating that “stop and frisk” had been found unconstitutional. What does that mean to you the listener? If I heard that, I would think that it is settled law across the land and it’s unconstitutional. It all gets back to the leftist definition of what “is” is.

Here are the facts…

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in 2013 that New York’s stop and frisk practices, were unconstitutional. Wow that settles it right? Well actually there are two key phrases that are important here (that are totally ignored by the left in order to give a false impression). First is “New York” and the second is “practices”. “Practices” legally means that the judge didn’t strike down stop and frisk in totality, but only stop and frisk as specifically practiced by this city (New York) at that time. This only applied to New York and supposedly the city could have tweaked the way they practiced the procedure and tried again… but we’re talking New York here now under a new leftist regime; so it just settled the case.

Now understand this, leftist Judge Scheindlin would have loved to have struck down stop and frisk overall, but she didn’t… she couldn’t. Why? Because her bosses’ a few rungs up the ladder had already ruled on that question long ago and that ruling still stands. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 in “Terry v. Ohio” that stop and frisk was constitutional. The Supreme Court has even confirmed and expanded on that ruling in other cases since. Stop and frisk IS constitutional. Yes, it’s being attacked by leftist judges across the land in individual cases, but it remains legal overall. Hillary (and Lester Holt) would have you believe a lie based on a half-truth and that Trump is an idiot for not know that. And they are largely successful thanks to the professional and intellectual dishonesty of the press (from which moderators are chosen).

Guess what the news stories will say today (right after the debate)? They will say that Trump was wrong and that stop and frisk was found unconstitutional. They will concentrate on this minor leftist nut-job of a judge and go no further? Why would they? Doing so doesn’t fit their narrative. It all gets back to partial truth used to sell a lie. It all gets back to weasel words. It all gets back to what your definition of “is” is. It all gets back to the left; which includes the main stream media and presidential debate moderators being so good at deception. It’s their job after all.

Call Out Trump Check – Call Out Hillary
My second observation is that Lester Hold asked Trump specific questions about his support of the birther conspiracy, his tax returns, his bankruptcies, and his early support of the Iraq invasion. Good for Lester… totally valid and tough questions and topics.

For the record… Trump is totally guilty on the birther thing… but Trump is also right that Hillary’s minions (Blumenthal and others) started the whole thing. They use the fact that these minions were not officially tied to the campaign at the time to claim plausible deniability. Again we see lies based simply on what your definition of “is” is. That’s good enough for the MSM, who will push the Hillary hook, line, and sinker.

Back to the main point. Lester hammered Trump with some tough questions. Again, totally valid… So did Lester ask Hillary about Benghazi? Did Lester ask Hillary about her email servers? Did Lester ask Hillary about the Clinton Foundation and “pay for play”? Nope… not one word. Crickets. The only way Hillary faced any touch issues all night, was for Trump to bring it up. (And he did a terrible job of it.) The left is practically never held to the same level of scrutiny as the right. This debate (hell all debates) is no exception.

What I Got from the Debate
So what is the main thing I took away from the debate last night? Lester Holt is a leftist, biased, hack (as if there were any questions going in). If Trump was going to have to debate both Hillary and Lester, why not put him behind a podium on stage and officially remove the illusion of objectivity.

The election is heating up with the first debate fast approaching (4 days away, Monday the 26th 2016). I have to admit that I’ll probably watch it… or at least have it on in the background while I work on my computer. Granted, I don’t know how long I’ll last. I expect to release an exasperated primordial scream at some point in time, and only hope I have the emotional control to turn off the TV… instead of shoot it (Didn’t Elvis do that?)

This brings me to the quote of the week… by Peggy Noonan (in the Wall Street Journal). She’s talking about her conversations with complete strangers about the Presidential election…

“Under the smiles and beyond the reticence it is clear how seriously Americans are taking their decision, how gravely. As if it’s not Tweedledum and Tweedledee but an actual choice between two vastly different dramas, two different worlds of outcome and meaning. The cynic or the screwball? Shall we go to the bad place or the crazy place?”

I’m still not sure where we’re going. Right now, you guys will have to let me know in November. I refuse to be a part of this.

Oh, I’ll vote. I’ve never missed a major election (and very few minor ones) and I never will as I draw breath. But I can’t see myself voting for either of the two party candidates. $#@^, I can’t even see myself voting for any of the top four or five party candidates. Gary Johnson (Libertarians), is a fiscal embarrassment by his party’s standards (and that would have been the only chance the Libertarians had to get my vote, me being a social/fiscal conservative in that order) WaserName (Green Party) is from the Green Party… enough said…

Right now (and this could change), I’m stuck between two write-in candidates; “None of the Above” or “Giant Meteor”. It’s going to be a game-day decision.